----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell"
To: "Glen Thompson"
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission questions

Here it is.
The savings were calculated as follows:

Mayor and Assembly $115,314
Attorney 137,321
Clerk 165,756
Manager 393,016
Finance 229,425
Total $1,040,832
I revised the estimate of savings downward to $950,000 because I recognized that some of the estimates were subjective. I didn't want to overstate the savings. For example, I made certain assumptions about what the annual audit would cost under a consolidated government. Other examples included travel, staffing, community promotion, professional services, utilities and the cost of elections, etc.

Bob Newell
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 7:38 PM
Subject: Question

Can you provide the Charter Commission with the calculation for the $950K savings under the previous petition?

Thanks

Glen Thompson
Chair

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell" <FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: "Glen Thompson"
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission questions

Also, I happened to be looking at the Charter Commission's web site last
night. I came across the correspondence from Lance Mertz about the
transfers between City funds. The transfers are summarized on page C-1 of
the 2004 General Government Budget. They are detailed on page AB-11 of
the same document. They are also discussed in the transmittal letter on
pages B-13 through B-14. The operating transfers to and from other funds
should balance. If you look on page C-1, you will see that the City's
transfers do balance.

The City also charges certain funds for services provided to these funds.
These charges are called interdepartmental charges and they are discussed on
pages B-12 and B-13 of the transmittal letter.

Transfers and interdepartmental charges are not the same, but they do share
one thing in common. They are transactions between funds. In the
commercial sector, most of these transactions would be called intercompany
transactions.

Hope this helps.
Bob

Subject: Fw: Sludge Fee - PLEASE POST

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: david.landis@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; jack.shay@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; george.tipton@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; maggie.sarber@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; samuel.bergeron@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; david.kiffer@borough.ketchikan.ak.us ; george.lybrand@borough.ketchikan.ak.us
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 PM
Subject: Sludge Fee

I think it is time for the assembly to review the ordinance regarding the sludge fee:

People on the north end of town who properly had their tanks pumped on a regular basis are paying 3-4 times what they did in the past to make up for the transgressions of those who weren't.

These citizens do not mind paying their fair share but a) it should be based on a more measurable standard, b) the use of the funds should be clearly described and finally, c) the manager's office or some other body should provide a board of equalization.

There are a lot of people who resent the fee in principle since they were not allowed to vote on it and perhaps that needs to be in the new charter along with sales tax.

You have people who operate a business in their basement and live upstairs who are being charged a $60 commercial fee PLUS a $45 residential fee: This is over $400 per year for ONE septic tank.

You have businesses on the north end who have PUBLIC restrooms who are being charged three times what they paid in the past to get pumped out and need a pumping more frequently due to heavy PUBLIC use. These people are charged more to provide a PUBLIC service and then pay more since your contractor has raised the rate for on-call pump out.

In my own case, my property at 7446 N Tongass has one small (residential size) tank which we religiously pumped out every three years. Now I'm told that since we have a small, one bedroom trailer on the property that uses this tank (it's always been there as a watchman's quarters) plus the shop building that has ONE toilet, we must pay for a commercial fee AND a residential fee: again over $400 per year.

Something stinks....

Glen Thompson

----- Original Message -----
From: alvin hall
To: Glen Thompson
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Charter Commission questions

 See attached Excel spreadsheets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell" <FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson@akpacific.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission questions
Glen - Here it is.  Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glen
      By copy of this e-mail to Bob Newell, I am authorizing him to respond to your request. Unfortunately, I have to advise you that absent City Council direction otherwise, this is pretty much all we can do to assist the Commission. There are a number of substantive issues that are before my office and the Finance Department. We are already behind on several important projects including completion of the annual audit. Unless the City Council wants us to place a higher priority on the Commission's efforts, we don't have the resources to assist further in the budget or transition plan.
Karl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Glen Thompson" 05/13 4:23 PM >>>
Thanks Bob....
I'm not certain what email from the manager you are referring to... could you forward me a copy?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell" <FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson@akpacific.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission questions
Glen:
The information you need for debt service can be found on pages 46 ­ 47 and 140 ­143 of the City's 2002 CAFR.  The Historical Commission is now part of the Museum Department's budget.  Please see page N-20 of the City's 2004 General Government Budget.  The same page will also provide you with the actual costs incurred, except that the estimate for 2003 is now known. The costs for 2003 were $1,003.
With regards to the other questions, I must defer to the directives outlined in the City Manager's e-mail of April 30. Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Thompson [mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:30 AM
To: Bob Newell; Al Hall
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Subject: Charter Commission questions
Gentlemen:
As we begin our budget work, a couple initial questions have been raised and I have been asked to contact you to assist. 
Question to Both:
We would like to have the current bond indebtedness and debt service figures to update our document.  If these are already provided in the budgets we have, please let me know where to look, otherwise it would be very helpful if you have a list?
Questions for Mr. Newell:
What is the actual cost of the Historical Commission (nominal) that will switch from being under the City Manager's office budget to the Museum department?
What is a special revenue fund basis to run Ports & Harbors?  Is this an enterprise fund?  If so, why?  Are there any targeted funds from port users like the cruise lines for which there are any formal or informal agreements?  Why is the Ports & Harbors Fund set up as a special revenue fund rather than an income generator for the General Fund?  Could you supply us with a list of harbors owned and/or operated by the City with designation whether they are owned or just operated?
Thank you both in advance for your continued assistance.
Sincerely,
Glen Thompson, Chair

FYI
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kleinegger" <JOHNK@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: "Deborah S. Otte" <DEBORAHO@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: "Edward Anderson" <EDA@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Certificable Area

Debby: I believe the last update to our Water Certificate No. 105 was done
in 1981 so it is quite out of date. Ed Anderson has the current
description of Ketchikan's municipal boundaries. We tried to submit
updates in the 1990's and could not even get even a written response from
the Alaska Public Utilities Commission - a "do-nothing" group which is now
replaced by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Ketchikan's
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the water utilities is modified
through application to the RCA. The amendment procedure is described on
their website;
http://www.state.ak.us/rca/business/applications/newcvrltr.html I follow
the RCA's responses to applicant's submittals throughout the state. They
seem very rigid, even petty at times, and rather bureaucratic. Although it
seems a straightforward process, it may be more difficult than it appears at
first glance to amend our certificate. John
>>> "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net> 05/12 6:14 AM >>>
John, the Charter Commission is working on the Transition Plan for the new
municipality. It says, "Although the KPU Water Division will be a division
of the consolidated municipality utility, it will initially provide service
only within its certificated area (that portion of the Ketchikan Service
Area encompassing the former City of Ketchikan)."

Our question is where exactly is this certificated area and how hard is it
to change?

Thank you.

Debby Otte, Charter Commission Secretary

----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Mertz <mailto:lmertz@kictribe.org>
To: charter@kpunet.net
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: City Sales Taxes

I just reviewed very quickly the City Tax spreadsheet. You may want to look at it. The Hospital Sales Tax says it is used for:

Hospital improvements, Gateway Center for Human Service, General Fund operations (so some DOES go to the general government).

I am printing the entire budget and will look through it for all fund transfers... it will be interesting to see exactly where what is going. I will attempt to diagram this for you. The Borough does some of the same stuff, but it is not nearly as complex.


Lance Mertz, CPA, MPA
Finance Director
Ketchikan Indian Corporation
907-228-5201
FAX 907-228-5248

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Schweppe" <STEVES@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson@akpacific.com>
Cc: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Amendment to 16

I would like to express my serious concerns with the proposed amendments to
Section 16.04. These amendments will cost the taxpayers dearly since they
are open invitations for lawsuits against the municipality.They will
allocate resources without public input and arbitrarily set priorities.
They also transfer power from elected representatives to the judiciary so
that management decisions are ultimately decided by the courts. I will
address each one separately.
At first blush, one would wonder why anyone would oppose adding to a
Charter the anti-discriminatory language which already is found in state and
federal law. That however is just my point. Persons who feel they have been
discriminated against by the new municipality already have up to 6 different
forums and sets of laws to seek relief. All you are doing by adding
anti-discrimination language is adding a 7th means to sue the municipality.
While the other 6 alternatives have extensive case law and regulatory
interpretation, the proposed Charter will not. It is quite possible that a
Court could determine that the Charter is meant to address other problems
than those already addressed in state and federal law and thus imposes on
the municipality requirements which are more stringent than those which
already exist. To some extent this has happened in Anchorage which has a
bill of rights type clause in its Charter.Furthermore, the state and federal
anti-discrimination laws have specific limitations on the time for filing a
claim. By adding a similar anti-discrimination clause, you are extending the
limitations period for lazy or negligent claimants and making it more
difficult for the municipality to defend. I note that you are prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That will add an
interesting element of social controversy to the consolidation. Are you
expecting the new municipality to extend health insurance benefits to
unmarried partners in homosexual relationships? After all public employees
are also members of the public. I express no position on this issue, but
you should know that this is an issue raised in your language. With the
exception of sexual orientation,the anti-discrimination language you propose
will generally provide no more protection against discrimination than
already exists. It will only be referred to by claimants who want more than
federal or state law allow. For example, one claimant accused the City of
disability discrimination for not having handicapped accessible ramps for
cruise ships at the Port. We defended on the basis that state and federal
law did not require the City to provide handicapped access from the ship to
the dock. No port in Alaska had full handicapped access from cruise ships.
The tidal ranges make it enormously expensive to do so. The city could not
afford the cost. While we were successful in that case, we would have had a
dangerous issue had we had a Charter provision prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of handicap. Then the claimant could have argued that the state
and federal limitations did not apply and the charter required either the
expenditure of whatever it took to end the "discrimination" or the closure
of the city docks.
The proposed new section adds similar problems. Presently, the City is
engaged in lengthy and expensive litigation which among other questions asks
whether internet service is a new public utility or enterprise under the
City's 1960 charter. Did the Charter writers in 1960 foresee a time when
information would flow over the same lines as telephone service or when
telephone companies would routinely offer that information as part of their
telephone service and over their equipment? What did they mean by new
utility or enterprise? The proposed language adds similar grounds for
controversy. What is unfair competition? Is it unfair competition for KPU
telephone to rely upon a rural exemption to argue against local telephone
competition? Does KPU unfairly compete when it uses its linemen to trim
trees along utility lines instead of contracting out the work? At least one
contractor thought so. Does the Borough bus system unfairly compete with
local taxis and shuttle services? If a private marina opens will the City
harbors be unfairly competing if they do not consider full depreciation in
setting harbor fees or if they use federal or state grants or if general
fund or KPU money is used to make improvements or repairs? Those options
are not available to a private marina. Does the City unfairly compete with
private garbage haulers when it requires residents to pay a collection fee?
I am sure the list of interesting questions can go on and on.
As for the last sentence in the proposed new section, I have little
idea what that means.Regardless of this language, the new municipality will
have to have a budget which provides money to pay for the proposed
expenditures. Can the new government develop Ward Cove or develop Gravina
Island after the new bridge? Both projects could require expenditures at the
expense of the tax base before an expansion of that base.What about KPU?
Could the municipaility issue general obligation bonds unless the assessed
valuation of the community had grown enough to pay the indebtedness? If you
intend to freeze the mil rate why not just set the rate and say that the mil
rate cannot be increased. While that does not seem wise to me at least it
is clear.
It is a dangerous temptation to write a Charter to attempt to "save"
future citizens and assemblies from the consequences of their poor choices.
Such attempts usually are futile and expensive in their own right. They
invite application of the law of unintended consequences.Legislation should
be left to the legislators and not be engraved in a charter where it cannot
be easily changed to meet future needs. In the final analysis, limitations
should be precisely and sparingly used so that future officials know what
they can and cannot do and yet have the ability to respond to the public's
demands and needs. The electoral system is the best and ultimate limitation.
If elected officials are spending money unwisely or increasing taxes too
much, then the public will either vote them out or rightly bear the price
for its decision to elect them.

Steven H. Schweppe
City Attorney

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Schweppe" <STEVES@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson@akpacific.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:55 AM
Subject: Article 16.06(b)

Attached are my comments concerning the proposed election to revisit the
service area sales tax. Those comments also apply to language which would
give the new assembly the power to reallocate service area sales taxes.

Comments

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: Mike Painter <mailto:sede@kpunet.net> ; Brad Finney <mailto:bfinney@kpunet.net> ; Debby & Dave Otte <mailto:dotte@kpunet.net> ; Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com> ; Jerry Kiffer <mailto:jkiffer@kpunet.net> ; John Harrington <mailto:johnharrington@kpunet.net> ; Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net> ; Dennis McCarty <mailto:mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:38 AM
Subject: Amendments to Article 12

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Attached please find an unfortunately lengthy document: I am proposing several amendments to Article XII (12) Service Areas in order to clarify, streamline and eliminate confusion.

This document is in three parts: the first two pages are the amendments, the next section is a Redline Document showing the changes proposed and the final section is a re-write of the Article with the changes made:

I am attempting to do several things, differentiate between rural and "metro" citizens in the provision of "area-wide" services, eliminate unnecessary and/or disjointed references to City of Ketchikan and Saxman powers, and overall make the document easier to read and understand. I have also deleted the Mud Bight Service area.

Most of the changes are cosmetic and wordsmithing but I think you will agree that they are more efficient.

Thanks

Glen

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: Mike Painter <mailto:sede@kpunet.net> ; Brad Finney <mailto:bfinney@kpunet.net> ; Debby & Dave Otte <mailto:dotte@kpunet.net> ; Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com> ; Jerry Kiffer <mailto:jkiffer@kpunet.net> ; John Harrington <mailto:johnharrington@kpunet.net> ; Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net> ; Dennis McCarty <mailto:mccarty.law@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Amendment to 16

Here are a couple amendments I'm proposing to Article 16

Amendment to 16.04

Add the following to the end of 16.04:

In any and all interactions with the public, the municipality shall not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, religion, race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, disabilty or veteran status.

Additional Section (new) Limits on Governmental Powers

The municipality shall not unfairly compete with local private enterprises in the provision of goods and services required to exercise its powers under this Charter. Further, the municipality shall not expand its workforce or budget expenditures at the expense of the tax base without a correlating expansion of that tax base.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Mike Painter" ; "Brad Finney" ; "Debby & Dave Otte" ; "Glen Thompson" ;
"Jerry Kiffer" ; "John Harrington" ; "Ketchikan Charter Commission" ;
"Dennis McCarty"
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:12 PM
Subject: Fw: Schedule of Operating Transfers

> This from Bob Newell, well worth a close look
>
> Glen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Newell"
> To: "Glen Thompson"
> Cc: "City Manager"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:24 AM
> Subject: Schedule of Operating Transfers
>
>
> Glen:
>
> Attached is a schedule of operating transfers between the funds that were
> presented in the MOK's 3-year budget. The transfers that pertain to debt
> service and economic development are definitely dated and in need of
> revision.
>
> Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell" <FINDIR@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson>; <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>
Cc: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission

Glen:

Attached is a copy of the 3-year budget that was presented in the City's
petition in an Excel format.

Bob

>>> Glen Thompson <gthompson@akpacific.com> 03/30 11:36 PM >>>

Do you either of you have a copy of the 2000 Charter's 3 year budget
projection available in Excel format that we can use for a working
draft?

Thanks

Glen Thompson
Chair

Hi Glen -

With regard to LIDs, the procedures outlined in the proposed charter are
pretty basic. In Section 14.02, it allows the Assembly to start the LID
process "on its own initiative" (I might word that differently to state "by
resolution") or allows the process to begin by public petition. This section
also provides for petition of the owners of the area, whether the process is
started by the Assembly or the property owners. Depending upon how important
the Charter Commission feels that public input is into special assessments
on individuals' property, this sentence could be left in or taken out to
include in the Code of Ordinances. If it is left in, the Charter might want
to attach a percentage to the number of owners who have been petitioned,
"Procedures for local services may begin only upon petition of at least
fifty percent of the owners of the property...." This would prevent the
process from beginning because of a small minority of owners.

The actual LID process that is outlined in the Ketchikan Municipal Code is
quite lengthy and detailed - necessarily so. Anytime someone has to pay more
for services their property will receive should be given adequate public
process.

I am less familiar with Service Areas, but overall it looks alright to me.

At this point, I am tentatively making plans to attend the Charter
Commission meeting on April 2 in order to answer any questions the
Commission may have on my comments. Thanks for the opportunity to provide
input!

Katy

Glen Thompson 03/30 11:32 PM
Greetings:

Since you provided us with such excellent advice in the earlier articles
regarding the clerks and voting, we were wondering if you could weigh in on
Article IV, LIDs and Service areas: There seems to be a significant amount
of specific instructions on how LIDs and Service Area voting and
organization would transpire and we were wondering if that made sense to the
experts?

Thanks
Glen Thompson, Chair

----- Original Message -----
From: Harriett Edwards <mailto:boro_clerk@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: 'Glen Thompson'
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:23 AM
Subject: Charter Sections XII and XIV

XII Service Areas and Areawide Powers
I am not very familiar with the details of these issues so cannot provide too much input. Several comments I have are: (1) There is no mention of water services. It would seem that would fit into a category such as sanitary sewage [see Section 12.04(f)]; (2) Under expansion or reduction of powers why is the Ketchikan Service Area specifically exempted from voter approval for expansions and reductions; (3) Section 12.06(b) Supervision of Service Areas. It is good that the choice for elected or appointed boards is provided. I'm sure an elected board for the Ketchikan Service Area would be preferable considering the scope of services provided. However, the second sentence should be modified to reflect the service area boards would make recommendations to the Assembly regarding "the cost and levels of service, the means, methods and facilities for providing the service and all requirements for receiving the service." The final authority should be the Assembly; the boards provide recommendations to the Assembly.

XIV Local Improvement and Service Districts
I don't have any comments on this section.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these.

Harriett J. Edwards
Borough Clerk
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
PH: 907-228-6604

VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.borough.ketchikan.ak.us

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harriett Edwards"
To: "'Glen Thompson'" ; "'Katy Suiter'"
Cc: "'Ketchikan Commission'"
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: Charter Commission

Glen, thanks for the opportunity. I'll review them and provide my comments
in the next couple of days.

Harriett J. Edwards
Borough Clerk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Harriett Edwards" "Katy Suiter"
Cc: "Ketchikan Commission"
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:32 PM
Subject: Charter Commission

> Greetings:
Since you provided us with such excellent advice in the earlier articles regarding the clerks and voting, we were wondering if you could weigh in on Article IV, LIDs and Service areas: There seems to be a significant amount of specific instructions on how LIDs and Service Area voting and organization would transpire and we were wondering if that made sense to the experts?

Thanks

Glen Thompson, Chair

Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: City Manager/KPU/attorney compensation package - PLEASE POST

Ms. Dahl, as with any other correspondence the Commission receives, I am distributing your email to the full Commission, as well as posting the information on Sitnews. On behalf of the Commission, I'd like to thank you for your information.

Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Steve Schweppe"; "Ketchikan Charter Commission"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission Questions

Steve: Thanks for the info!
```````````````````````````````````````````````````
Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Schweppe"
> To: "Glen Thompson"
> Cc: Scott Brandt-Erichsen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Charter Commission Questions
>
>
I agree with Scott that collection of fees should not be added to the tax lien section of the Charter. It is best left to the Assembly to address the legal issues which will arise if a lien on property is used to collect fees. Since the government will be home rule,the Assembly does not need authorization from the Charter to exercise legislative powers such as determining the method for collection of fees owed the government.

As for your question on the payment in lieu of taxes by the port department and KPU, you have touched on a topic which received considerable debate. The language in 10.07 and 8.03(e) was drafted by Bob Newell and Mayor Weinstein. I've never understood it very well, but believe it was intended to reflect the fact that neither KPU nor the port department currently make payments in lieu of Borough taxes. Since the Borough cannot tax municipal property it cannot tax KPU or the port department. As a home rule municipality the City can, however impose a payment in lieu of taxes on its KPU and port property. I think that this language was intended to assure that KPU and port property would not receive a big jump in payment in lieu of taxes once consolidation occurred. Their payments would still be based on what they paid the City and not what the Borough taxes. Since the City was using reserves to lower its tax rate and thus lower the payments in lieu of taxes, the payment was allowed to increase proportionately to the amount that the reserves were used. While I never liked the language, it highlights the problem of payment in lieu of taxes. Since neither KPU nor the port department can appeal an assessment, it is important to protect them from disproportionate payments to the general government. It may be equally important,however, for KPU and the port department to make a payment in lieu of service areas taxes to cover police, fire and public works services those departments receive.

Section 12.02(c) mentions EMS services in order to avoid any argument that EMS is a "hospital and public health service". The draft charter makes hospital and public health an areawide power. Since we knew that EMS was provided by Pond Reef and was not an area- wide power we wanted to be sure that no one could assert that Section 12.07 could be avoided by placing EMS under hospital and public health.

Section 12.02(h) includes airport police as an areawide service. Elsewhere we state that the power to operate a police department is a service area power. However, the airport police department is an areawide service. It is a necessary part of operating the areawide airport power. If we had not specified that airport police was within the areawide power to provide airports, we would have created a conflict within the Charter. One section would have said that the government could not create an areawide police department while another section would require an areawide airport police department in order to operate the airport. It would have
created an interesting problem of funding the airport police on a service area basis.

We do not have good records concerning the reference to "air-taxi" in Section 12.02(h). As best we can determine it came from a state employee who worked with Dan Bockhorst in reviewing our preliminary draft. The first mention of it is found in a document typed outside of this office. I assume it gives power to regulate passenger and freight air service to surrounding communities to the extent that the federal and state governments have not pre-empted local regulation. Since it appeared to do no harm and appeared to give little authority which did not already exist, I did not question it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Schweppe" <STEVES@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bond Elections

I was out of town when you emailed me. The language of our draft charter was reviewed by bond counsel for the City and Borough. I have written comments from them which were the basis for much of the language. A key problem which I recall with this section is whether revenue bonds should be approved by the electorate. The City Charter requires such approval while the Borough requlations do not. The Borough was concerned that the small amount of borrowing it does for the airport would be delayed and jeopardized if a public vote was necessary to authorize it. The City was concerned that voters have an opportunity to approve the large borrowings necessary for KPU. The City pointed out that the borrowing for projects like the new Wartsilla generator at Bailey had a bigger impact on voters' utility rates than many government g.o. bonds had on their taxes. There was also a concern that in order to get a reasonable bond rating for service area projects, the Borough would have to back the bonds with its full faith and credit. This would require an areawide vote to fund such service area projects. It could make it difficult to bond for police, fire and public works projects if those powers remained service area powers. It would be difficult to explain to people outside of the service area that while service area taxpayers were obligated to pay the indebtedness, people outside of the area would be obligated to pay if the service area couldn't.

>>> "Ketchikan Charter Commission" <charter@kpunet.net> 03/08 8:19 PM >>>
Article XI, Borrowing, of the draft Ketchikan Charter is up for review at the Friday night meeting of the Charter Commission on 3/12 at 6 pm. Section 11.02 of that article concerns Bond Elections and if we could solicit comments from the "experts", either in person or in writing, it would be most appreciated.

Thanks.
Debby Otte, Secretary
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen <mailto:boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: 'Glen Thompson'
Cc: Steven Schweppe <mailto:steves@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: Charter Commission Questions

Glen,

The provisions are a paraphrasing of the state statutes in AS 29.45.300 and .310. These sections provide:

Sec. 29.45.300. Tax liability.

Statute text

(a) The owner of assessed personal property is personally liable for the amount of taxes assessed against the property. The tax, together with penalty and interest, may be collected in a personal action brought in the name of the municipality.

(b) Property taxes, together with penalty and interest, are a lien upon the property assessed, and the lien is prior and paramount to all other liens or encumbrances against the property.

History

(§ 12 ch 74 SLA 1985)

Annotations

NOTES TO DECISIONS

Taxes are not a lien unless expressly made so by statute, and when expressly created, the lien is not to be enlarged by construction. Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City of Yakutat, 206 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1953), decided under former, similar law.

Real and personal property may not be sold to satisfy taxes on both as lump sum. - Where the court ordered both real and personal property sold as an entirety to satisfy taxes, penalty and interest due upon both classes in a single, lump sum, the court erred. Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City of Yakutat, 206 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1953), decided under former, similar law.

Lien may be enforced only against assessed property. - The remedy provided by this article is available only to enforce the lien of real property taxes against the realty assessed. Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City of Yakutat, 206 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1953), decided under former, similar law.

Date of accrual. - Pursuant to this section, AS 29.45.110, and AS 29.45.120, the tax "accrues" in full each year on January 1; thus, a vessel's tax status became fixed for the full tax year on the date of its assessment, and no adjustment was required for post-assessment changes in its value, situs, and ownership. Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Arndt, 958 P.2d 1101 (Alaska 1998).

Sec. 29.45.310. Enforcement of personal property tax liens by distraint and sale.

Statute text

(a) A lien for personal property taxes may be enforced by distraint and sale of the property. The municipality shall provide the procedure for distraint and sale by ordinance. A seizure, levy, or distraint is not legal unless demand is first made of the person assessed for the amount of the tax, penalty, and interest, and a sale is not valid unless made at public auction no sooner than 15 days after notice is published. The seizure is made by virtue of a warrant issued by the municipal clerk to a peace officer.

(b) If the personal property sold is not sufficient to satisfy the tax, penalty, and interest, and costs of sale, the warrant may authorize the seizure of other personal property sufficient to satisfy the tax, penalty, interest, and costs of sale. If the property is sold for more money than is needed to satisfy the tax, the municipality shall remit the excess to the former record owner upon presentation of a proper claim. A claim for the excess filed after six months of the date of sale is forever barred.

History

(§ 12 ch 74 SLA 1985)

Sec. 29.45.320. Real property tax collection.

Statute text

(a) The municipality shall enforce delinquent real property tax liens by annual foreclosure, unless otherwise provided by ordinance.

(b) If the tax on property described in AS 29.45.070 or on a taxable interest in tax-exempt property is not paid when due, a municipality may enforce the tax by a personal action against the delinquent taxpayer brought in the district or superior court, in addition to other remedies available to enforce the lien.

History

(§ 12 ch 74 SLA 1985)

Under AS 29.10.200 these limitations apply to home rule municipalities. While you could add fees to the portion providing that fees were a debt of the person assessed, the remedy of distraint and sale which is provided for enforcing a prior and paramount tax lien is a special remedy for tax collection granted by the statutes and would not be available for fees. Thus I would recommend against adding fees in this section. If the objective is merely to make clear that fees can be used I would suggest a separate section providing that the Assembly may levy and provide for the collection of such fees for municipal services as it deems appropriate.

By the way, my recollection of the specific mention of airport police in 12.02(h) was so that it was clear that the airport police were not under an areawide police power but were ancillary to the airport powers only. There had been concern that if this was not clear the issue of whether you could have police there or whether that meant you had areawide police because they were an areawide power would have confused or concerned some people.

Scott

From: Glen Thompson [mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:36 AM
To: Steven Schweppe; Scott Brandt-Erickson
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Subject: Charter Commission Questions

These questions arose at last week's meeting, we would appreciate either of you giving us your opinion/advice:

Section 10.10

Scott: What would be the effect of adding "or fees" to the language? Such as in para 2 : "Municipal taxes or fees on personal property shall be a debt to the municipality from the persons to whom they are assessed. If any person to whom such taxes or fees are assessed fails or refuses to pay the taxes or fees, such taxes or fees and accrued charges, penalties, and interest may be collected ...."

Steve:

Why is the language in Section 10.08 (and also similar language in 8.03(e)) so complex and detailed rather than simply saying "as set by ordinance?"

Steve:

In section 12.02(c) Mandatory Area Wide Powers

Why is there a reference to EMS powers?

In Section 12.02(h)

Why is there a reference to Airport Police and what does the reference to "air taxi" mean?

Thank you in advance!

Glen Thompson
Chair
KCC

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson
To: Steven Schweppe <mailto:steves@city.ketchikan.ak.us> ; Scott Brandt-Erickson <mailto:boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:36 AM
Subject: Charter Commission Questions

These questions arose at last week's meeting, we would appreciate either of you giving us your opinion/advice:

Section 10.10

Scott: What would be the effect of adding "or fees" to the language? Such as in para 2 : "Municipal taxes or fees on personal property shall be a debt to the municipality from the persons to whom they are assessed. If any person to whom such taxes or fees are assessed fails or refuses to pay the taxes or fees, such taxes or fees and accrued charges, penalties, and interest may be collected ...."

Steve:

Why is the language in Section 10.08 (and also similar language in 8.03(e)) so complex and detailed rather than simply saying "as set by ordinance?"

Steve:

In section 12.02(c) Mandatory Area Wide Powers

Why is there a reference to EMS powers?

In Section 12.02(h)

Why is there a reference to Airport Police and what does the reference to "air taxi" mean?

Thank you in advance!

Glen Thompson
Chair
KCC

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
To: Roy Eckert <mailto:mgr_office@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:42 AM
Subject: Saxman

Do you (or Al) have a listing of the services currently being supplied to Saxman from the Borough? (I don't believe the City provides any)
Do you have any estimate of the cost of same?

Article XIII Saxman

Until otherwise provided by law, the City of Saxman shall continue to receive such areawide municipal services as it previously received from the KGB....

We are wondering what they are and how much they cost to provide for Saxman?

Thanks!

Glen

Schools
Solid Waste Disposal
Library
Civic Center
Museum
Hospital
Public Health
Parks & Rec
Port/Harbor
Cemetery
911 Dispatch
Public Trans - Bus - Airport
Animal Control
Economic Development
Sewer
Water
EMS
Fire Protection

From: John Harrington
To: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Sales Tax

Greetings all:

As you know I won't be at next Friday's meeting. So I will voice an issue by e-mail for your consideration at the meeting.

After floundering around the sales tax issue last Friday, it is probably better for me to write down my concerns anyway. The sales tax of the city of Ketchikan is the issue I want to explore.

The future Ketchikan service area will remain the primary source for goods and services for the borough as a whole. So the sales tax issue of the current city is one that the people of the entire borough should have a voice. Section 16.06 (b) excludes the rural portions of the borough from any say on that sales tax rate. In addition it locks in the existing sales tax inequity. If this were the only inequity that has the rural residents subsidizing the city I would probably not make it an issue. However, since this is just one of several institutional inequities I believe we need to address it somewhere.

The current language states:

Section 16.06 Pre-Consolidation Assets, Liabilities, Sales Taxes, Reserves and Franchises, and Collective Bargaining Rights

(b) Sales and Use Taxes. All sales and use taxes levied within the former City of Ketchikan and the former Ketchikan Gateway Borough shall remain in effect until changed as provided in this Charter. Within one year from the first election under this Charter, the Assembly shall apply the levy of the former City of Ketchikan's one percent (1%) hospital and other purposes sales tax on an areawide basis throughout the Municipality with the revenues from the areawide levy being appropriated for the Municipality. The ratification requirement of Section 10.05(b) shall not apply to this one percent areawide levy. The remaining two-and-one-half percent (2%) of the former City of Ketchikan's sales tax shall be appropriated for the Ketchikan Service Area. Sales tax levies required by this section shall remain in effect until changed as provided in this Charter.

One solution could be to add wording at the end of this section such as:

[Within three years of ratification of this charter, the borough assembly will present for voter approval a reauthorization of a sales tax, including both areawide and non-areawide sales taxes. All future changes to the sales tax will be submitted to the entire borough for ratification. Unless voters reauthorize it, the sales tax will terminate on December 31, 2008.]

March 18, 2004

To: Ketchikan Charter Commission

From: Glen Thompson, Chair

Re: Grant Administration

The Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce (GKCC) agreed at their board meeting of March 17, 2004 to administer our grant from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and a pass through grant from the DCED, combined total of $20,000.

KGCC made this administration conditional on the following:

The Charter Commission must approve vouchers for payments.

The GKCC executive committee will approve the payment based on approved minutes from the Charter Commission.

The GKCC will charge a fee of 3% of the grant total as an administration fee.

Since there are several steps in getting our bills paid, I expect we will need to add an agenda item to approve vouchers. The timeline will be something like this:

Start   Invoice received and voucher prepared
Week 1  Charter Commission approves vouchers
Week 2  Commission approves minutes from previous meeting and submits minutes and vouchers to GKCC
Week 3  GKCC executive committee reviews vouchers and minutes and approves payment.
Week 4  Vendor is paid

The GKCC board had some concerns related to the grant agreements and specific reporting requirements therein. They also had some concerns regarding accounting and auditing requirements that may delay access to the funds.

I anticipate that our biggest ongoing expense will be the administrative assistant at up to 20 hours per week and we will need to remain diligent to the schedule to insure timely payment to our contractor.

----- Original Message -----
From: alvin hall <mailto:al.hall@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Financial Agenda Statements

Debby:
Thanks for the update. Al

This is Scott's information on the school article of the Charter. He said the language that is currently in the Charter in 9.03 (b) gives the Board power over personnel and while if that's what is desired, that's fine, he thought the original language might be more in keeping the Superintendent in charge of the day to day running of things. The original language says,"Appoint and provide for suspension & removal of school personnel, including the superintendent." The amended language says, "Appoint, promote, demote, suspend, remove all school personnel, including the superintendent."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Brandt-Erichsen"
To: "'Deborah S. Otte'"
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: Huh?

Debby,
If there are things which I can help with let me know. As to the comments I was making the following are some relevant statutes:

Sec. 14.12.080. Qualification of members.
Statute text
To be eligible to be a member of a school board, a person must have the same qualifications as are necessary to be a municipal voter in the school district.
History
(§ 1 ch 98 SLA 1966)

Sec. 14.12.100. Application.
Statute text
AS 14.12.010 - 14.12.100 apply to home rule and general law municipalities.
History
(§ 1 ch 98 SLA 1966)

Sec. 14.14.130. Chief school administrator.
Statute text
(a) A school board may select and employ a qualified person as the chief school administrator for the district. In this subsection, "employ" includes employment by contract.
(b) If the district employs a chief school administrator, the administrator shall administer the district in accordance with the policies
that the school board prescribes by bylaw.
(c) If the district employs a chief school administrator, the administrator shall select, appoint, and otherwise control all school
district employees that serve under the chief school administrator subject to the approval of the school board.
(d) This section does not prohibit two or more school districts from sharing the services of a chief school administrator.
History
(§ 1 ch 98 SLA 1966; am § 1 ch 29 SLA 1969; am §§ 3, 4 ch 136 SLA 1990;
am §§ 19, 20, 21 ch 83 SLA 1998)

Scott

From: alvin hall <mailto:al.hall@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Help

Debby:
Wish I could be here on Friday evening. I'll be going to Seattle on the 4;30 and will be gone about a week.

Basically everybody pays the areawide fees and taxes. Nonareawide becomes a little more specific, everybody outside the city limits pays for the library tax. We have service areas where those households within the service area pays the fee or tax for services rendered. Forest Park has both a service area fee and tax. South Tongass Fire and EMS have a tax. North Tongass Fire and EMS have a tax. The Borough also has a sludge fee for households of $15 per month. Mountain Point Sewer has a monthly fee and the Water also has a fee. I'll have Mavra send a copy. Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commission [mailto:charter@kpunet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:18 PM
To: adminsys@borough.ketchikan.ak.us
Subject: Help

Al, I have to do a survey and cannot find where I have my list of who pays for what. Could you just quickly tell me whether the things on this list are provided areawide or nonareawide and who pays with what (fees, taxes, etc)?? Thank you so, so much. I owe you!!!

Oh, by the way, Friday night we start the review of the Finance and Borrowing sections of the Charter. Sure could use your expert opinions. Attached are the sections.

Thanks. Debby O

911 Emergency Dispatch           Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

Fire Protection           Police

Hospital           Public Transit

Parks and Recreation           Library

Museum           Civic Center

Cemetery           Animal Control

Solid Waste Disposal           Wastewater Collection & Treatment

Mental Health & Substance Abuse           Building Code Enforcement

Ports & Harbors           Airport

A = Area Wide

C= City

B=KGB

KPU = KPU

SA= Srvice Area

Stx= Sales Tax

Ptx= Property Tax

Ketchikan Charter Commission Grant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Bockhorst"
To: "Glen Thompson"
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:43 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Ketchikan Charter Commission Grant]

Glen: FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Ketchikan Charter Commission Grant
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:33:52 -0900
From: Diane Hunt
To: Dan R Bockhorst > >
Hi,

I sent Roy Eckert the grant Monday for his signature. As soon as I get it back I will let he and Glen Thompson know when the check is in the mail.

thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Lindgren" <DANL@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: <gthompson>
Cc: <charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Charter Commission

Hi Glen:
I would prefer not to get involved in specific discussions regarding KPU/COK issues. FCC rules Part 32, Part 36, Part 54, Part 64, and Part 69 comprise the bulk of the regulations for the interstate jurisdiction. We are also subject to State telecommunications regulations (Chapter 47-53 of AAC) with the exception of economic (rate) regulation, as that is a local/municipal function (Ketchikan Municipal Code). Wish I could be of more help.
Dan

>>> "Glen Thompson" 03/02 2:52 PM >>>
Hey Dan!

A question arose at the last Charter Commission meeting regarding the use of revenue (profits) from KPU for general government.

Can you lend some insight on this?

The idea being floated is that, currently , assets of KPU may not be used by general government without proper compensation. The commission voted to allow the new assembly to discontinue charging KPU a payment in lieu of taxes which could potentially generate additional "profits" (also known as excess fund reserves). The charter currently does not allow those funds to be swept up by general government and there was some discussion that this might be a possibility. There was some additional comment that this would
not be possible without violating telecommunications tariff law.

Thanks

Glen

From: Glen Thompson
To: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Charter Questions

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brandt-Erichsen <mailto:boroatty@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: 'Glen Thompson' <mailto:gthompson@akpacific.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: Charter Questions

Glen do you still need this? As to durational residency I remember a case in Kenai about this and the idea of lengths over a year being questionable without justification sticks in my mind. However, I have not researched it and would want to before giving a response which would be quoted. Let me know.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:26 PM
To: Scott Brandt-Erickson; Steven Schweppe
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Subject: Charter Questions

Gentlemen:

At our recent meeting a question arose regarding residency requirements to be qualified to be elected or appointed to municipal office: Specifically a commissioner wanted to consider increasing the requirement from one year to three years. Can you enlighten us as to the law regarding residency?

Also, in Section 2.07 Meetings, it states "Special meetings shall be held at the call of the mayor or of four or more assemblymembers and, whenever practicable, reasonable notice shall be given"...

A commissioner questioned the phrase "whenever practicable" since this could allow a meeting without notice to the public. Could you let us know what the intent is behind this phraseology?

We would like to extend an open invitation to address the commission on any topics that you feel we may need additional input.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Schweppe" <STEVES@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: Glen Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Charter Questions

The Alaska Supreme Court has on two occasions held that the maximum residency requirement a municipality can impose on candidates for elective office is one year. See Peloza v Freas 871 P2d 687 (Alaska 1994) and Hayes v Municipality of Anchorage 46 P3d 971 (Alaska, 2002). A three year requirement is flatly unconstitutional. As for appointed officials the question has not been as conclusively answered, but it is unlikely that the Court would hold differently. Afterall why would one want to restrict applicants for borough manager or borough attorney to those people who have lived here 3 years? To my knowledge it has been at least 25 years since an attorney who lived in Ketchikan was appointed city or borough attorney.Several managers and school superintendents have been hired from out of town. KPU regularly hires from outside of town due to the need for very technical skills. Why invite legal challenges and require future Assemblies to use consultants instead of employees where technical skills are needed? When particular local knowledge is valuable the hiring authority can consider this in making up the job description. As for planning commissions and similar appointed bodies, the familiarity of applicants with the community is one of the considerations the appointing body uses, so residency is not necessary to screen out people who are unfamiliar with the community. If you want to screen out people based on duration of residency in excess of one year you will likely have to meet a high level of scrutiny from the courts and show a more compelling reason and close fit between your purposes and the durational requirement. Residency requirements for employment in general raise close legal questions which cannot be well addressed in a broad document like a charter. In 2002 the City amended its Charter to conform to the Peloza case.

As for the "whenever practicable" language for meeting notice, this question was very well answered at the commission's meeting. It is possible that a case of dire emergency could arise where notice is not practicable.

Secondly, we wanted to make sure that the draft charter's requirements were less strict than the Alaska Open Meetings law. Sometimes city's have records and meeting requirements that are stricter than the State law. This is a source of trouble, since everyone relies on the State Open Meetings law and inevitably forgets about the local law. We wanted the draft charter to remain less strict than any current or future State requirement.Since the new borough will be bound by the State law regardless of its charter, the "whenever practicable" language could only apply in dire emergency. Under any other circumstance some sort of reasonable notice is "practicable".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Newell"
To: Glen Thompson
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:25 AM
Subject: Comments

Glen:
Please find attached my comments regarding the questions you raised in your February 16 e-mail.   As I haven't e-mailed you before, please let me know if you get this.  I'm not sure if I have your correct e-mail.  Call or e-mail  if you have questions.
Bob

To: Glen Thompson, Chair
Ketchikan Charter Commission
From: Bob Newell
Date: February 20, 2004

Subject: Request for Comments

In response to your e-mail of February 16, 2004, I offer the following comments regarding the issues you raised. Please note that the views expressed are my personal views and not those of my employer, the City of Ketchikan.

Position of finance director: I do not think it would be in the best interest of the City and Borough of Ketchikan to have the finance director report directly to the Assembly for the following reasons.

I think it is important for the Assembly to get impartial advice regarding the financial operations of the City and Borough of Ketchikan. If the finance director reports to the Assembly, the political nature of the appointment may cloud the finance director's judgment and compromise the finances of the municipality.

The manager, as chief executive officer, is ultimately responsible for the overall municipal operations. The manager's ability to manage is quite often affected by the finances of the municipality. For this reason, I think it is important for the manager to have managerial control over the finance functions of the municipality. If the finance director reports to the Assembly, the manager would have no control over an important function that could affect his or her ability to manage effectively.

I believe that the manager would be in a better position than the Assembly to review and evaluate the performance of the finance director. The manager works with the finance director on a daily basis and the manager should have the experience and knowledge to evaluate the finance director's performance on the basis of the financial issues facing the municipality.

I believe that having the finance director report to the Assembly would require more staff support and may increase the cost of government. The City and Borough of Ketchikan cannot afford to lose its finance director on short notice or be without a finance director for an extended period of time. For example, it may be necessary to have in place a well-qualified assistant finance director capable of managing the finances of the municipality between finance directors in order to provide for continuity and to keep the Finance Department functional. In addition, it has been very difficult to recruit and fill professional positions with qualified candidates. I think that having the finance director report to the Assembly could make the recruitment efforts even more difficult. I wonder if the Assembly would be required to offer "golden parachute" options to encourage candidates to accept the position.

Section 2.10 (a) (2): The current language provides for the amount to be adjusted for changes occurring in the consumer price index after 1998. Whether $500 is too low or too high is subjective. The intent of the current language was to remove any appearance of a potential conflict of interest. The Commission may want to consider the merits of changing the language to allow for the dollar limit to be set by ordinance. This would give the Assembly the flexibility to adjust the dollar limit as warranted.

Current City taxes and how the funds are being spent: Please see attached. (Last Page)

If you have any questions about my comments and the information about current city taxes, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

----- Original Message -----
From: alvin hall
To: Glen Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: Charter Commission

Glen:
I do have concerns regarding making the position of CFO being a political appointment.  Politics may not allow the position to have the independence required by AICPA or other professional organizations.
 
We will be happy to provide financial information as prepared in our day to day operations or policy documents.  Presently the Borough is going through its conversion to GASB 34 and the FY2004-2005 Budget at the same time.  Our staff is small with a present shortage of personnel.  It will be necessary to receive authorization from the Assembly prior to our finance department providing staff support.  Al
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:27 PM
To: Al Hall; Bob Newell
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Subject: Charter Commission
Gentlemen:
 Greetings from the Ketchikan Charter Commission.  As we deliberate to create our charter document, many questions arise that you are more expert in answering than the elected body.  We would like to extend to you an open invitation to correspond with us or address our commission at our regular scheduled meeting on Friday's at 6 pm.
At our last meeting, we voted to add a section to Section 2 which would make the Finance Director (Fiscal Officer) report directly to the Assembly rather than to the manager.  We would like your comments on that change.
We also would like your considered opinion on another issue.  In Section 2.10 (a) (2), Prohibitions, it discusses the relationship of contracts between the municipality and elected officials and exempts purchases less than $500 in 1998 dollars.  We wonder if that figure is still appropriate and/or the reference date index.
We will have many questions relating to revenues, fees, taxes and structure of various budgets in the near future.  The biggest question in our minds at present concerns what taxes are being collected currently and what they are supporting in the current budgets.  The information contained in the 2001 charter documents is fairly dated.   Any assistance you can render will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
 Ketchikan Charter Commission
Glen Thompson, Chair

Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson
To: Karl Amylon <mailto:citymgr@city.ketchikan.ak.us> ; Roy Eckert <mailto:mgr_office@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: Charter Commission Meeting

Gentlemen:

The Charter Commission will be reading and discussing the following at our meeting on February 20, 2004 with a second reading and adoption at our meeting on February 27, 2004:

Article IV, Municipal Manager and Administrative Departments
Article V, Nominations - Elections
Article VI, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall
Article VII, Planning

We cordially invite you or a designated member of your staff to address us if you have any issues or concerns regarding these sections.

We have invited the municipal clerks to address us at these meetings and they have accepted our invitation. They will jointly address the commission on the 20th. There is ample time for you to speak at that meeting or at a future one.

Sincerely,


/s/
Glen Thompson
Chair
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Thompson
To: Karl Amylon <mailto:citymgr@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Ketchikan Charter Commission topic

Dear Mr. Amylon:

The Charter Commission will be reading and discussing Article VIII, Municipal Utilities at our meeting on February 27, 2004 with a second reading and adoption at our meeting on March 5th.

We cordially invite you or a designated member of your KPU staff to address us if you have any issues or concerns regarding this charter section.

We have invited the school board to address us during these sessions as well since we will also be reviewing Article IX, Education.

Sincerely,


/s/
Glen Thompson
Chair
Ketchikan Charter Commission

----- Original Message -----
From: Harriett Edwards <mailto:boro_clerk@borough.ketchikan.ak.us>
To: 'Glen Thompson'; 'Katy Suiter' <mailto:katys@city.ketchikan.ak.us>
Cc: 'Ketchikan Charter Commission' <mailto:charter@kpunet.net>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Charter Commission

Glen, Katy and I are going to get together before your meeting to discuss some of the issues we have brought up before about elections so we can approach the commission as "one voice".

Harriett J. Edwards
Borough Clerk
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
PH: 907-228-6604

VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.borough.ketchikan.ak.us

From: Glen Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:14 PM
To: Harriett Edwards; Katy Suiter
Cc: Ketchikan Charter Commission
Subject: Charter Commission

Greetings;

The Ketchikan Charter Commission will be discussing Article V regarding elections at our meeting on Friday, February 20, 2004. We are interested in hearing any concerns or comments that you might wish to bring to our attention on this item (or any other) at that time. If you can attend the meeting, please let us know by the end of the day, Tuesday the 17th.

Thank you,


Glen Thompson
Chair
Ketchikan Charter Commission

Fwd: Re: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

From: Dan Bockhorst <dan_bockhorst@dced.state.ak.us>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:20:14 -0900
To: "Deborah S. Otte"
Cc: gthompson, tommiller, bfinney jkiffer, johnharrington, sede, mccarty, Steve Schweppe , Lorna J Mcpherren
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Debby: I concur fully with Mr. Schweppe about the issue at hand as well as the issue about the name of the prospective consolidated borough government.

"Deborah S. Otte" wrote:

> From: Steve Schweppe
> To: Deborah S. Otte
> February 9, 2004
>
> This sentence was added to the draft charter on August 1, 1997. It was added in response to comments from Dan Bockhorst. Mr. Bockhorst noted that there has been some controversy over the meaning of the prior sentence which gives the municipality all powers not prohibited by law. The controversy centers on whether the Assembly must adopt an ordinance whenever it seeks to exercise a particular power or whether it can do so merely by approving an act which is an exercise of the power. We opted to allow the Assembly to exercise the municipality's powers by ordinance or otherwise as it determines. I summarized the decision as follows:
> " Section 1.04 has been changed to maximize the manner in which the Borough's powers may be exercised. As you will recall, Dan Bockhorst described conflicting opinions as to whether a home rule borough must enact an ordinance in order to exercise a certain power. The new language, which is patterned after existing language in the City of Ketchikan's Charter, is intended to allow the Borough to exercise powers in any way it determines whether that be pursuant to ordinances, resolutions, motions or other determinations by borough officials. The Charter does require some powers to be exercised only after voter approval or by ordinance. The thrust of this language is to allow the greatest flexibility except in those areas where that flexibility has been specifically limited or denied."
>
> I encourage you to keep this sentence. It avoids any dispute as to how powers can be exercised. It reflects the realities of local governing bodies. Elected officials often authorize actions without considering whether they need an ordinance, resolution or motion to do so. Our approach was to recognize this fact and to allow it except in cases where the manner of exercising the power was important. When a certain procedure was important to protect certain rights we specified the procedure. If you don't use this approach, you just open the door for lawsuits over whether or not the Assembly used the right form for exercising a power and write into the Charter unnecessary delays due to cumbersome procedure. Our approach in general was to avoid broad mandates so that future officials could address problems without obsolete rules to box them in. That has been the key to successful constitution writing as most clearly shown by the US Constitution.
> As long as I am commenting, I would like to comment on the name of the new government. Simply referring to it as Ketchikan does nothing to tell people what they really want to know. They want to know what kind of government it is, not the geographical location. I favored the name Ketchikan Borough, but the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee thought that this name lacked style and would too easily be confused with the present borough. The term Municipality of Ketchikan copied Anchorage's name so people would have some idea of the type of government they are dealing with by reading the name.
>
> From: Steve Schweppe
> To: Deborah S. Otte
> February 9, 2004
>
> I didn't reply directly to the question of "other authority". That phrase probably refers to the manager and department heads although it could refer to a State or Federal agency which might want to see a power exercised by ordinance or resolution. I do not see a reason for concern since we are dealing with a matter of procedure, not an extension of powers. The sentence applies to situations where the municipality already has the power and is proceeding to exercise it.
>
> From: Deborah S. Otte
> To: Steve Schweppe
> February 9, 2004
>
> Steve, John Harrington asked that I forward this email to you.
> Debby Otte
> Charter Commission Secretary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Harrington
> To: Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Question for Mr. Bockhorst
>
> Dear Mr. Bockhorst:
>
> During deliberation, the Ketchikan Charter Commission had questions regarding some wording in the 2000 Ketchikan Charter. We found the following (italicized wording) not very illuminating. So we deleted it. However, if there is some purpose for inclusion of the wording we would certainly consider reinstating it or some similar wording. The sentence in question was the second sentence in Section 1.04 Powers:
> Section 1.04 Powers: The municipality may exercise all powers of a home rule borough not prohibited by law or by this Charter. All powers of the municipality shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by this Charter or applicable laws or, if the manner is not thus prescribed, then in such a manner as the Assembly or other authority may prescribe.
>
> In particular the "other authority" raised the paranoia quotient up a few points.
>
> PS: Glen, or Debby could you forward this on to Mr. Schwepe? I can't locate his email address.
>
> Debby Otte, Administrative Assistant
> KPU Telecommunications
> 907-228-5440
> Fax: 907-225-1788

Fwd: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

From: "Deborah S. Otte"
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:22:15 -0900
To: bfinney, dan_bockhorst, gthompson, jkiffer, johnharrington, law@city.ketchikan.ak.us, sede@city.ketchikan.ak.us, tommiller
Subject: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

From: Steve Schweppe
To: Deborah S. Otte
February 9, 2004

This sentence was added to the draft charter on August 1, 1997. It was added in response to comments from Dan Bockhorst. Mr. Bockhorst noted that there has been some controversy over the meaning of the prior sentence which gives the municipality all powers not prohibited by law. The controversy centers on whether the Assembly must adopt an ordinance whenever it seeks to exercise a particular power or whether it can do so merely by approving an act which is an exercise of the power. We opted to allow the Assembly to exercise the municipality's powers by ordinance or otherwise as it determines. I summarized the decision as follows:
" Section 1.04 has been changed to maximize the manner in which the Borough's powers may be exercised. As you will recall, Dan Bockhorst described conflicting opinions as to whether a home rule borough must enact an ordinance in order to exercise a certain power. The new language, which is patterned after existing language in the City of Ketchikan's Charter, is intended to allow the Borough to exercise powers in any way it determines whether that be pursuant to ordinances, resolutions, motions or other determinations by borough officials. The Charter does require some powers to be exercised only after voter approval or by ordinance. The thrust of this language is to allow the greatest flexibility except in those areas where that flexibility has been specifically limited or denied."

I encourage you to keep this sentence. It avoids any dispute as to how powers can be exercised. It reflects the realities of local governing bodies. Elected officials often authorize actions without considering whether they need an ordinance, resolution or motion to do so. Our approach was to recognize this fact and to allow it except in cases where the manner of exercising the power was important. When a certain procedure was important to protect certain rights we specified the procedure. If you don't use this approach, you just open the door for lawsuits over whether or not the Assembly used the right form for exercising a power and write into the Charter unnecessary delays due to cumbersome procedure. Our approach in general was to avoid broad mandates so that future officials could address problems without obsolete rules to box them in. That has been the key to successful constitution writing as most clearly shown by the US Constitution.
As long as I am commenting, I would like to comment on the name of the new government. Simply referring to it as Ketchikan does nothing to tell people what they really want to know. They want to know what kind of government it is, not the geographical location. I favored the name Ketchikan Borough, but the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee thought that this name lacked style and would too easily be confused with the present borough. The term Municipality of Ketchikan copied Anchorage's name so people would have some idea of the type of government they are dealing with by reading the name.

From: Steve Schweppe
To: Deborah S. Otte
February 9, 2004

I didn't reply directly to the question of "other authority". That phrase probably refers to the manager and department heads although it could refer to a State or Federal agency which might want to see a power exercised by ordinance or resolution. I do not see a reason for concern since we are dealing with a matter of procedure, not an extension of powers. The sentence applies to situations where the municipality already has the power and is proceeding to exercise it.

From: Deborah S. Otte
To: Steve Schweppe
February 9, 2004

Steve, John Harrington asked that I forward this email to you.
Debby Otte
Charter Commission Secretary

----- Original Message -----
From: John Harrington
To: Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Mr. Bockhorst

Dear Mr. Bockhorst:

During deliberation, the Ketchikan Charter Commission had questions regarding some wording in the 2000 Ketchikan Charter. We found the following (italicized wording) not very illuminating. So we deleted it. However, if there is some purpose for inclusion of the wording we would certainly consider reinstating it or some similar wording. The sentence in question was the second sentence in Section 1.04 Powers:
Section 1.04 Powers: The municipality may exercise all powers of a home rule borough not prohibited by law or by this Charter. All powers of the municipality shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by this Charter or applicable laws or, if the manner is not thus prescribed, then in such a manner as the Assembly or other authority may prescribe.

In particular the "other authority" raised the paranoia quotient up a few points.

PS: Glen, or Debby could you forward this on to Mr. Schwepe? I can't locate his email address.

----- Original Message -----
From: Debby & Dave Otte
To: John Harrington ; Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Mr. Bockhorst

I'll take care of it.
DebbyO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: John Harrington
To: Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Mr. Bockhorst

Dear Mr. Bockhorst:
 
During deliberation, the Ketchikan Charter Commission had questions regarding some wording in the 2000 Ketchikan Charter. We found the following (italicized wording) not very illuminating. So we deleted it. However, if there is some purpose for inclusion of the wording we would certainly consider reinstating it or some similar wording. The sentence in question was the second sentence in Section 1.04 Powers:
Section 1.04 Powers: The municipality may exercise all powers of a home rule borough not prohibited by law or by this Charter. All powers of the municipality shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by this Charter or applicable laws or, if the manner is not thus prescribed, then in such a manner as the Assembly or other authority may prescribe.
In particular the "other authority" raised the paranoia quotient up a few points.
PS: Glen, or Debby could you forward this on to Mr. Schwepe? I can't locate his email address.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: Debby & Dave Otte
To: Jerry Kiffer ; John Harrington ; Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: P.S.

I've sent the agenda to Mike to review.  We can always add more at the meeting.  Just type them up for me so I can add them to the list for when we do an ad.  Thanks.  I'm going to go visit with my husband for a couple of hours and will send out the whole agenda around 9.  Sitnews is not being as prompt at posting as I'd hoped, but will try to get her to at least put the new agenda on the main page so everyone will know what we're going to talk about.
Talk to you later.
DebO
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Kiffer
To: John Harrington ; Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: P.S.

I agree with John, I have about 8 questions I feel are good ones and a few that need more work. I would hate to have to go with what I have now and would really like a bit more time to refine them, a few more days?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---- Original Message -----
From: John Harrington
To: Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: P.S.
Greetings All:
As a philosophical point, a survey should help answer some questions. The more burning the issue, the more the data are needed. So if we aren't sure what questions to ask, then it is probably too early for the survey.
Also, I was looking at a single ' 81/2 by 11' sheet insert in the paper. If we were to plan on using that format, and have some available on line and at the grocery stores with receptacles, maybe we could save the citizenry some money on postage.
 
Any way, lets us make haste but do some deliberately. Let's aim for a survey about March .

----- Original Message -----
From: John Harrington
To: Mike Painter ; Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: P.S.

Greetings All:
 
As a philosophical point, a survey should help answer some questions. The more burning the issue, the more the data are needed. So if we aren't sure what questions to ask, then it is probably too early for the survey.
 
Also, I was looking at a single ' 81/2 by 11' sheet insert in the paper. If we were to plan on using that format, and have some available on line and at the grocery stores with receptacles, maybe we could save the citizenry some money on postage.
 
Any way, lets us make haste but do some deliberately. Let's aim for a survey about March .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Painter
To: Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Debby Otte ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; John Harrington ; 'Dan Bockhorst'
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:42 PM
Subject: P.S.

Debby-I guess the first question on the survey probably should be: Are you a city ( ) or a rural
( ) resident?
 
MP
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commission
To: Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Dan Bockhorst ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; John Harrington ; Ktn Charter Commission ; Mike Painter
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:30 PM
Subject: Where's the Beef??

Okay, I'm still looking for suggested questions for a mail-out survey.
 
I've got pretty much everything else done except the info on the Svc areas, but that shouldn't take too long. 
 
Please give me what assistance you can.  It's no fun being all alone. :)
Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commission
To: Tom Miller ; Brad Finney ; Dan Bockhorst ; Dennis McCarty ; Glen Thompson ; Jerry Kiffer ; John Harrington ; Ktn Charter Commission ; Mike Painter
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:38 PM
Subject: Reminder

Don't forget to get some questions ready for the mail-out survey agenda item.
 
Thank you.
 
Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Ketchikan Charter Commission
To: Mike Painter ; Ktn Charter Commission ; John Harrington ; Jerry Kiffer ; Glen Thompson ; Dennis McCarty ; Dan Bockhorst ; Brad Finney ; Tom Miller
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: Webpage

Here is the webpage address on Sitnews.  It is still under construction and as I get time I'll be sending her items to post.
 
http://www.sitnews.us/CharterComm/info_forum.html
 
Also, please remove Sitnews from your all-email list.  Since she has a specific way she wants things submitted for inclusion on the list, having Sitnews on it would only double their received messages.  So, the all-Commission email list should include the Commissioners, Dan Bockhorst and Tom Miller.
 
Thank you.  Stay warm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "John Harrington"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte"; Glen Thompson
Cc: "Mike Painter", "Tom Miller" , Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty" , "Dick Kaufman" ,
"Jerry Kiffer"
Subject: Meeting tonight: YES I'll be there.
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:24:53 -0900

Greetings All:
I am safely in town. I will not be going anywhere until after tonights meeting. So Please, lets have a meeting. The hard part of getting here I already did.
See Ya'all tonight. I Hope.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:41:56 -0900
Subject: Re: Point of View
Cc: "Mike Painter", "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman",
"Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte"
From: Glen Thompson I would like to meet if at all possible. I'm flying in and arrive at
1648 so will be coming directly from the airport. While I understand that there might be fewer in the audience than we might like, they can watch on TV... Also with all the items we have to discuss, it will be difficult to go another week without some action on several of these items.

That having been said, if the consensus is to postpone, would someone please call my cell phone and let me know?
Thanks.
Glen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Mike Painte, "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"
Subject: Re: Point of View
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:30:16 -0900

Mike, I didn't get your message until after I sent out the official meeting stuff.

I agree there should be a time tomorrow (Friday) when we say yes or no about the meeting taking place. That's A LOT of snow out there and I know we'll be on TV, but it sure won't gather a bunch of people in our audience. But, we have to make a decision early enough in the day to let the public know and when do we say we're meeting again??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Mike Painter"
To: "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Debby Otte", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"
Subject: Point of View
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:05:17 -0900

All,
Debby looks good to me. Except we may have a snow day (at least today)!
I've been busy the last few days & kinda out of touch. My computer caught a virus (I've quarantined it), but I'll have to have my buddy Greg Bjork come & check it out.

I don't know if it is pertinent for an agenda item, but at least discussion. Keep in mind my thought is based upon what the LBC cites time & time again "the less government the better". My thoughts for you all to ponder are this: In the City's 2000 charter the existing form(s) of government was abolished and the entire area was divided up into "service areas". In addition to the existing service areas the City became a "service area". Within each service area was, as is now a service area board, advisory to the newly elected 7 member assembly. Typically each board contains 5 members. If you do the math that is not less government but more.

What if the new "Municipality of Ketchikan" were created with the existing Borough boundaries? Add to this only 2 service areas, North Tongass starting at the north side of the Borough owned KPC property and South Tongass starting the southern terminus of the existing Mountain Point water/sewer system. The Municipality could have certain area-wide powers to structure property taxes for services that it could provide "most economically & efficient". Such as public education, library, EMS, fire, 911 dispatch, utilities, and so on. That way the existing water & sewer districts could consolidate they're operations (more efficient).

The Municipality could thorough grants and other funding sources extend water & sewer up to the service area boundaries. Mileage rates could be adjusted until such time those services are provided. The service areas could decide within what services they desire and tax accordingly.

I could go on and on but I just wanted to plant the seed for you all to think about. One other thing; seeing how we are so "keep the public and media informed" minded, how about adding Dan Bockhorst to our group e-mail? That way if he so chose, he could comment, if not he would be apprised of our progress.

See Ya Friday night
MP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:43:55 -0900

How about I put John's idea on the agenda as a discussion item with the example and then Glen's resolution? We could then discuss both and make a decision. I'm at home today and will get a draft agenda done and to you shortly so you can add if you'd like. Then I'll send all of you the whole package. I am hoping to give all the documents to you on disk at the meeting and Glen is having the charter/petition copied for inclusion with his resolution. He'll be bringing those hard copies from Juneau. Anyone else have anything for the agenda? Going once....going twice....thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Debby & Dave Otte", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:06:46 -0900

I have prepared a resolution to use the city charter for a working draft and will submit it Friday (I may be a little late, my plane lands at 16:48)

Glen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:08 -0900
From: Jerry Kiffer
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
To: John Harrington, Debby & Dave Otte, Brad Finney, Dennis McCarty, Glen Thompson, Mike Painter
Cc: Tom Miller, Sitnews

I have only one comment on the idea about modeling a new document after other cities charters:

I completely support the idea of using the work put in by others, however the LBC has publicly announced the Ketchikan Charter as a "model document" I think there is some advantage to using the 2000 Ketchikan Charter document and simply cutting and pasting to make it fit our needs. It is true that the Haines Charter is more simply written but the LBC did not consider it a "model" so they must see something in our document they like?? Just a thought.

The idea we compare what we come up with other cities is a great idea but have already heard concern that the citizens don't care what "other" communities have done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: mccarty.law@att.net
To: "Debby & Dave Otte"
Cc: "John Harrington", "Jerry Kiffer", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Glen Thompson", "Mike Painter", "Tom Miller" , "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:10:14 +0000

I finally located an internet source today. I read through the e-mails so far. I believe John's suggestion as to use of other charter documents is an excellent one. Using a concrete starting pace with initial written segments from other charters will really help organize the discussion on the commission and help organize public input in specific areas, that does not mean we can't think "outside the lines", but it will really help keep us focused and organized.

I think copying the elected council, assembly, managers, and mayors is a good idea. that way they are all advised and hopefully no one lets it fall through the cracks on "it's not my job" on requests we make. As a courtesy I would suggest we send a copy to the mayor of Saxman. We should also consider sending letters to the Daily News, and at some point, periodically, a larger piece for them to publish on their commentary section.

send any messages to my mccarty.law address. I finally learned to acces my mail from remote sites. Excuse the spelling, I forgot to bring my reading glasses with me.

Dennis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "John Harrington", "Jerry Kiffer", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Glen Thompson", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:25:55 -0900

I am forwarding John's work to Glen as he has an agenda statement in mind already for this and John's GREAT idea would fit in nicely. Once I get the minutes typed, I'll get an agenda statement form formatted to each of you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "John Harrington"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte", "Jerry Kiffer", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Glen Thompson", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Agenda item for Friday meeting
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:15:04 -0900

Hello All,

I would like one agenda item for Friday's meeting to be a discussion on structuring the writing of the charter. I think there was concensus opinion to use the Ketchikan 2000 charter as a starting point. (If so we need to confirm that on Friday. )Additionally, I would like to see us break the charter up by sections and provide the public with it a section (or two) at a time with alternatives (such as the Haines, Sitka, and Juneau charters). I have appended a prototype using the Preamble and Section I. For discussion purposes for the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM BY JOHN HARRINGTON

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the greater Ketchikan area, in order to form an efficient and economical government with just representation, do hereby ordain and establish this Charter of the Municipality of Ketchikan.

Sitka Alternative: [We, the people of the Greater Sitka area, in order to form an efficient and economical government with just representation, do hereby ordain and establish this Charter of the City and Borough of Sitka.]

Juneau Alternative: [We, the people of the greater Juneau-Douglas area, exercising the powers of home rule granted by the Constitution of the State of Alaska, in order to provide for local government responsive to the will of the people and to the continuing needs of the community, do hereby ratify and establish this Charter of the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska.]

Haines Alternative: [We the people of the Haines Borough, exercising the powers of home rule granted by the Constitution of the State of Alaska, in order to achieve common goals, to support individual rights, to form a more responsive government, and to secure maximum control of our own local affairs, hereby establish this charter. This charter guarantees to the people of the Haines Borough the following rights that are in addition to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Alaska:
The right to a government of the people, by the people and for the people, which safeguards our diversity, harmony between neighbors and respect for the environment; The right to access a well maintained public record of all actions of public officials in accordance with this charter, so that the citizens of the borough may retain control over the affairs of their government; The right to enjoyment of private property, chosen lifestyles, traditions, employment, and recreational activities without unnecessarily restrictive or arbitrary laws or regulations.]

ARTICLE I
NAME, BOUNDARIES AND POWERS

Section 1.01 Name

The municipal corporation shall be known as "Municipality of Ketchikan." Whenever it deems in the public interest to do so, the municipality may use the name "Ketchikan."

Sitka Alternative: [The municipal corporation shall be known as "Sitka." Whenever it deems it in the public interest to do so, the municipality may use the name "City and Borough of Sitka."]

Juneau Alternative: [The municipality shall be a municipal corporation known as "THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA."

Haines Alternative: [The municipal corporation shall be known as the Haines Borough.]

Section 1.02 Type and Class of Government

Ketchikan shall be a home rule borough and shall operate as an "assembly manager" form of government.

Sitka Alternative: [No comparable section.]

Juneau Alternative: [No comparable section.]

Haines Alternative: [The Haines Borough government is a home rule borough established by the voters through the consolidation of the former first class City of Haines and the former third (second) class Haines Borough (Ketchikan Gateway Borough). The Haines Borough shall operate as a manager form of government.

Section 1.03 Boundaries

The boundaries of the Municipality shall be the same as the boundaries of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough as they exist on the date of ratification of this Charter. The boundaries of the Municipality may be changed in the manner provided by law.

Sitka Alternative: [The boundaries of Sitka Borough as they exist on the date of ratification of this Charter or hereafter are legally modified.]

Juneau Alternative: [On July 1, 1970, the boundaries of the municipality shall be co-extensive with the boundaries of the Greater Juneau Borough existing on June 30, 1970.]

Haines Alternative: [The boundaries of the Haines Borough shall include all areas within the borough on the date of ratification of this charter. The boundaries may be altered in the manner provided by law.]

Section 1.04 Powers

The Municipality may exercise all powers of a home rule borough not prohibited by law or by this Charter. All powers of the Municipality shall be exercised in the manner prescribed by this Charter or applicable laws or, if the manner is not thus prescribed, then in such a manner as the Assembly or other authority may prescribe.

Sitka Alternative: [The municipality may exercise all powers of home rule cities or boroughs not prohibited by law or by this Charter.]

Haines Alternative: [The Haines Borough may exercise all powers available to a home rule borough, not prohibited by law or this charter.]

Juneau Alternative: (a separate section on powers) [- POWERS
Section 2.1. POWERS. The municipality may exercise all powers not prohibited to home rule cities or boroughs by law or by this Charter.
Section 2.2. CONSTRUCTION. The powers of the municipality shall be liberally construed. The specific enumeration of a particular power in this Charter shall not be construed as limiting the powers of the municipality.
Section 2.3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. The municipality may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions and may participate in the financing thereof, jointly or in cooperation, by agreement with any one or more local governments, the State, or the United States, or any agency or instrumentality of these governments.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: Needs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:28:52 -0900

I just had an email address made: charter@kpunet.net It is part of my package at present, but when/if we get moved, it can be transferred to a separate account.

Thanks for the list of things, Jerry. I will hopefully get the letter out to the Managers tonight (i'm still typing minutes and have to get the machine back in the early morning). There will be a packet and agenda emailed to you Thursday, if not before. Cross your fingers my brain doesn't fry before then.

Anyway, I'm talking the Mary Kaufman after work and will have the website up and running as soon as possible.

Anyone else??
Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:05:05 -0900
From: Jerry Kiffer Subject: Re: Needs
To: Debby & Dave Otte, Brad Finney, Dennis McCarty, Glen Thompson, John Harrington, Mike Painter
Cc: Tom Miller, Sitnews

There may be a bit of a problem with the mill site as it is not ADA compliant, however I'm not sure we fall under those requirements as we are a citizen committee (a question for our legal staff!) I don't believe the old gateway building is completely leased so lots of space there. I have an old (thermal) fax machine, and could probably talk SE Business machines out of a copier. I have a big commercial machine at my office and would be willing to make copies for the present if needed. I also know where we can get a desk, file cabinet, shelving and the like, if we need it. It is KGB property but it is not being used and I'm sure we can use it but would have to ask the manager first.

I would like to see the web site and email issue clarified as soon as possible. Will we be able to get the next agenda and packet to review on Wed/Thus?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"

I'll make certain all get the letter via email once it's done. Thanks
``````````````````````````````````

From: "John Harrington"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte", "Jerry Kiffer", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Glen Thompson", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"
Subject: Re: C'mon guys let's get going
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:34:02 -0900

Debby, If we want things quickly, we will need to go through the Managers. They have more discretion over funds than the Mayors do. But why not send it to all 16 of the elected officials and the two managers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Mike Painter", "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"
Subject: Re: C'mon guys let's get going
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:38:54 -0900

I think the letter should go to the Mayors, not the Managers. The managers will follow the direction of the assembly/council. Thoughts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Mike Painter", "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"

Subject: Re: C'mon guys let's get going
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:36:59 -0900

Please send any revisions to me and I'll get them coordinated and finalize the docs for Glen's signature. He can then fax them to city/boro Monday. It's amazing that only Glen and Mike have checked in. Are any of the rest of you out there??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Mike Painter"
To: "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Debby Otte", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington"
Subject: C'mon guys let's get going
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:07:52 -0900

All,

Debby-I agree we need to get this initial house keeping done or we'll never get off the starting blocks. In addition to the "office staples" the first thing we need to agree upon is where to have an office, remember it has to be "open to the public". I agree with Glen we are in fact a defacto commission of the Borough (big words for me), but the city has an interest here also. I suggest we ask both Roy Eckert and Karl Amalon what they could provide from your shopping list with time being of the essence. We can then review what they have to offer and make our choices. What they can't provide we'll have to buy/lease with they're/our public funds. If push comes to shove, as a last resort I could make a corner available in my office, the location is great (above Wal-Mart), but I'm not real keen on the idea. I'm going to be real busy Monday through Wednesday of this week. With that in mind I've drafted the following letter to both managers for all of you to review. Please feel free to make any changes or additions. If you all agree then we need to submit it to the managers & get the show on the road."we're burning daylight".

MP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ATTACHMENT, DRAFT REQUEST LETTER
Ketchikan Charter Commission
Homeless
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

Today's Date

Ketchikan Gateway Borough
344 Front St.
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Attn: Borough Manager

Mr. Eckert

On behalf of the Ketchikan Charter Commission, I feel we need to keep you informed as to our progress. We had our first meeting last Wednesday night the 21st of January. Many thanks to the Borough clerk Harriet Edwards for helping us get started. At that first meeting we elected a chairman (Glen Thompson), a vice-chairman (I), and a secretary (Debby Otte). We adopted several Borough ordinances pertaining how to conduct our meetings (as suggested by Harriet Edwards).

We appreciate the fact that the Borough has set aside funds for our endeavor. All of us elected commissioners are employed. We have agreed to meet weekly, initially. We decided that we would like to hire a part-time person to do the clerical tasks of our commission. We feel it would be unfair to burden any of our elected commissioners with this job as we're all working people.

With that in mind, we come to you to see if you have a small office available. Along with that we'll need < Debby insert list >. We appreciate anything you have to offer. Keep in mind time is of the essence, we have less than 8 _ months to submit our draft consolidation plan to you. We look forward to your reply. Our next meeting is scheduled this coming Friday, January 30th at 5:30 PM at the City Council Chambers. Again kudos to Harriet Edwards for helping us get started.

Yours truly,

Mike Painter
Vice-Chairman, Ketchikan Charter Commission
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte", "Jerry Kiffer", "Dick Kaufman", "Dennis McCarty", "Brad Finney", "Tom Miller", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "John Harrington"

I think we need to remember that we executed this citizen's petition through the borough and are a defacto (although independent) commission of the borough. In the interim (until we obtain funding), we can communicate through the borough. In fact, as a point of law, we may be required to do so.... Dennis, if I'm off base let me know... We also need to move forward, so hang on to your receipts, folks.

GT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte" To: "Jerry Kiffer" <jkiffer@kpunet.net>,
"Glen Thompson", "Dick Kaufman", "Dennis McCarty", "Brad Finney", "Tom Miller", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "John Harrington"
Mike, I had thought of the KPC Admin building. It is pretty isolated, but would be workable. I know Glen is out of town starting tomorrow, Sunday, until Friday. When everyone puts their 3 cents in (by the end of the weekend, I hope), maybe you & I can come up with at least an email to the Mayors/Managers of both entities.

Another thought is to include ASD, KIC, and some of the other bigger officed places on that list. Also the Chamber.

Come on, you other guys....help us out. Mike, John Harrington's email is wrong on your list. It's johnharrington@kpunet.net
Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Mike Painter"
To: "Tom Miller", "Brad Finney", "Debby Otte", "Dennis McCarty", "Dick Kaufman", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington" Subject:
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:14:07 -0900
Debby & All,

Gee, I just fumbled through making a group contact list also, hope it works.

I have been doing some reading in regards to our mission, & talking to people. I am eager to get to the nuts & bolts of this & spring my ideas on the rest of you.

I think that someone (?Glen?) should contact the City Manager & Borough Manager with your shopping list. They can delegate the list to the proper person(s) to see what they could provide. As far as an office goes.it needs to be open to the public, as you all know. I don't know about the City, but I do know the Borough is pretty cramped in the Reid
Building. I do believe the Borough has lots of office space in the old KPC administration building.just a thought.

As far as by-laws go, I think that is something we need to discuss as a group.

Old & slow too,
Mike Painter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Brad Finney", "Dennis McCarty", "Glen Thompson", "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Mike Painter"
Cc: "Tom Miller", "Sitnews"

We need to put together a list of things that we can (hopefully) solicit from the governmental agencies and the private sector for use during our tenure (which will be at least until September 30, but probably beyond as the LBC gets involved). Here is the list. Please add to it (maybe use a different font color?)and return to me with any additions or ideas as to where/who we can send a letter for response by Wednesday for our meeting next Friday.

LIST: 1-person office, duplexing/sorting copier, internet-ready computer with MS office & adobe (at a minimum), printer, fax, document-feed scanner, desk, 2-line telephone, large file cabinet.
Office supplies include 8-10 cases of copy paper, approx. 80 recording tapes, envelopes, tablets, pens, etc. (Note: please add to this supply list as you think of anything)

Brad, I have last week's meeting packet for you. Is there someplace I can take it, or would you prefer to just stop by my house when you're in town?

I'm going to call Mary Kaufman today about setting up our website. My ideas keep it pretty basic. (see below) Any suggestions, please advise ASAP. For now, I plan on adding an email address on Monday to my account at kpunet. It's only $1 a month to do this. If/when we get an office, we can move that email there.

We need to come up with some by-laws. Please coordinate with Glen as to who will be doing this and let me know. Plan on having them ready for an agenda item next week. As one of you mentioned, we need to get this organizational stuff done so we can start to work. It would be nice to have the agenda firmed up for web posting by Wednesday evening.

I made a group in my address book for the Commission members, however, please make sure you cc: Tom Miller (tommiller@ketchikandailynews.com) and Sitnews (editor@sitnews.org) with any emails to the Commission members.

Suggested Web page:

KETCHIKAN CHARTER COMMISSION

Your comments and suggestions are welcome, encouraged and appreciated. You can either email the Commission or you can post a comment on this page. Thank you for your participation, and thanks to SitNews for providing this forum.

POST A COMMENT

EMAIL THE COMMISSION (Note: Your emails will become part of the permanent record of the Commission and will be posted on this site.)

(POSTINGS)

AGENDAS

MINUTES RESOLUTIONS BYLAWS

DOCUMENTS OF INTEREST

So, please let me know ASAP on all these things. I'm old and slow :) Thanks
Debby Otte
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "Jerry Kiffer", "John Harrington", "Deborah S. Otte", "Glen Thompson, "Brad Finney",
"Mike Painter", "Dennis McCarty"

Thanks for your comments, Jerry. The budget I was referring to was for our commission, not the overall one. I KNOW that's going to take some time.

Anyway, see you all Wednesday.
Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:39:07 -0900
From: Jerry Kiffer
Subject: Re: Organizational Meeting
To: John Harrington, "Deborah S. Otte", "Glen Thompson", "Brad Finney", "Mike Painter, "Dennis McCarty"
Cc: Debby Otte

Just some thoughts,

I like Mike's approach, I feel there may be a tendency to rush into getting this job underway however, as this will "hopefully" be a very public process we need to establish solid ground rules very early in the game.

I like the idea about a public comment section and would also like to consider a second short comment section at the end of the meeting, this would allow some instant feedback for items discussed on the floor and I think would encourage the public to attend the meetings if they knew they would be able to speak on subjects presented. How about meeting length, I would vote for no longer that 2 hours. I think after 8 - 10 hours at work,
folks loose enthusiasm and effectiveness suffers.

As for budget, I think we need to closely evaluate how long this will take before we firm up a budget. We do have charters from other areas and the 2000 charter to use as a boiler plate but let's not forget the people voted that one down! I would like to explore the possibility of extending the September deadline, I would like to see this charter passed soundly and feel it may very well take major work to the existing charter, not just a polish
of the document already written.

I am excited about the project and the possibility of one day watching an assembly meeting without getting my blood pressure up! I intend to be a very strong supporter of "service areas" or "districts" that would allow the people opportunity to inform government what their wants and needs are, not the other way around!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Mike Painter"
To: John Harrington, Glen Thompson, Dennis McCarty, Brad Finney, Jerry Kiffer, Debby Otte
Subject: My 2 cents worth!
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:05:00 -0900

All:

I appreciate the good comments I have received from you all so far. Now here is mine:

Most previous consolidation, unification, and annexation information should be available on the State of Alaska Local Boundary Commissions web site, including information about the current commissioners.

I think before we all go off like loose cannons, we need to establish some orderly ground rules for Wednesday's meeting. I'm assuming that most all of us are working stiffs, and our extra time is somewhat limited. I suggest the following (in order) to make our group
productive, as time is of the essence.
1. I suggest we each stand up and introduce one's self with a brief summation of each one's background (remember we don't all know each other), and your goal pertaining to the Charter Commission (and be honest). I feel this would be prudent to select # 2.

2. We need to nominate and elect a chairman, vice chairman, and secretary.

3. Keep in mind that our meetings are open to the public. It would be nice if someone could pick up 7 copies of the Alaska Public Open Meetings Act (?Debby?)

4. More than likely we are going to be bombarded with public comment, which is good, but only when we are ready for it. With that in mind we need to set up a roster for our meetings (roll call, pledge of allegiance, old business, and so on). I think we need to set some rules for public comment or we'll end up adjourning at midnight. Like I said
most of us are working stiffs.

During the meeting we can decide the initial things we need to accomplish such as a budget, selecting our one person to contact City & Borough staff for information, deciding whether or not to hire paid staff.

In conclusion, congratulations to all those elected. I think the voters made a pretty good selection. I look forward to working with you all. Just keep in mind that most of us are working stiffs with limited time and occasional business travel. See you Wednesday night!

Mike Painter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Glen Thompson"
To: "Debby & Dave Otte", "John Harrington", "Brad Finney", "Jerry Kiffer", "Mike Painter", "Dennis McCarty"

Keeping the copies of the emails is a good idea, we can adopt them as part of the official record during a meeting.

From: "Debby & Dave Otte"
To: "John Harrington", "Glen Thompson", "Brad Finney", "Jerry Kiffer", "Mike Painter", "Dennis McCarty"

That will be something to bring up in the meeting, for sure. One thing: we need to compile a list of all the documents everyone has gathered so that all may have all, if you will. Please bring your list to the meeting (Brad, please email me what you have as far as charters, rules, etc) and I will make sure everyone gets everything.

In talking with the Borough Clerk today, she suggested we should come up with a budget (something else to do Wednesday night) listing supplies, advertising money and she said to go whole hog and cost out a part to full-time staffer, office, computer, copier, etc. That none of us will have the time or the facilities to handle all that needs to be done.

So, for Wednesday we have election of officers, sub-committees, budget (and once that's done, agenda items for the two elected bodies) and scheduling of the next few meetings. I'm sure we'll find more to talk about (email or a comment forum on Sitnews?).

I plan on printing out and saving our emails prior to the start of our task, just so there's no hint of collusion or back-room politics.

Study hard and I'll see you Wednesday. Oh, the Daily News will do Meetings and Brevities along with a story. The meeting is posted on SitNews in their calendar and I've had the radio stations do public service announcements, so I think we're covered as to official Notice of this meeting.

Debby O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "John Harrington"
To: "Deborah S. Otte; "Glen Thompson"; "Brad Finney"; "Jerry Kiffer", "Mike Painter", "Dennis McCarty"
Cc: Debby Otte
Subject: Re: Organizational Meeting
Date: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:43 PM

Greetings all:

I will be out of town for a couple of days. I will be back in time for the meeting on the 21st. I am forwarding on to you a few thoughts regarding the charter commission process. As I understand it our job is to write a charter while providing public information and seeking public input. At the same time we need to provide financial information-putting dollars to any charter components we create. However, we are not working in a vacuum. We have several charters already available for us to use as prototypes so . . .I
have a suggestion for you all (yawl if your from the South) to consider.

We have no staff, so we need to do the grunt work. If we break into subcommittees with the task of taking the various charter sections and preparing several alternates of those section, e.g. 1S, 2H, 3J, 4K, & 5X based on the four charters (Sitka, Haines, Juneau, the 2000 Ketchikan charters and perhaps a hybrid or off the wall recommendation). The
subcommittee could recommend a preferred alternative: Then the alternatives could be advertised, (Daily News and Sitnews), requesting written public input. Then the full committee could make a decision. (Of course after all sections of the full document are compete, we could seek additional input and changes before finalizing the document.)

For example
Name (A hypothetical committee recommendations in descending order)
1S: (Preferred) the name of the municipality shall be "Ketchikan" however,
for clarity reasons the borough may use the name "City and Borough of
Ketchikan."
2H: The name shall be the Borough of Ketchikan . . .
3J: The name shall be the "City and Borough of Ketchikan." . . .
4K: The name shall be the "Municipality of Ketchikan." . . .
5X: The name shall be "Wacker City, the Borough in the Heart of the
Tongass." . . .

Another initiative would be to seek input from outside our community. Letters to Editors of other communities. Asking for evaluations of what was good/bad about the other charters. Of course we will get some "crack-pot" or "cracked-borough" suggestions, but just maybe we can get some good data that will allow us to avoid some serious problems down the road.

As you can see, I'm sitting here on this beautiful Friday evening, Thinking. What a waste of a good weekend night. I look forward to a busy Winter and Spring with all of you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:07 PM
TO: Glen Thompson, Brad Finney, Dennis McCarty, John Harrington, Mike Painter, Jerry Kiffer

The first official meeting of the Charter Commission will occur at 6:30 pm on Wednesday, Jan. 21, in the City Council chambers.
Unfortunately, Brad will miss this meeting, but it's the night next week with the least members missing.  Hopefully we'll have a full boat the next time we meet.
I will notice this in the Meetings & Brevities and have the radio stations do public service announcements.
Attached is a list of our members with phone/email addresses.  Please be aware that both the City & Borough have requested that we do not go willy nilly and request documents and/or help.  There should be only one person they have to deal with.  We'll decide who that is on Wednesday.  Have a great weekend.  Take notes and we'll see you Wednesday.
Debby Otte